Worldwide Hybrid Cloud Computing Market – Drivers, Opportunities, Trends, and Forecasts 2016–2022
Global Pension Systems and Their Reform: Worldwide Drivers, Trends, and...
Transcript of Global Pension Systems and Their Reform: Worldwide Drivers, Trends, and...
DI
SC
US
SI
ON
P
AP
ER
S
ER
IE
S
Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der ArbeitInstitute for the Study of Labor
Global Pension Systems and Their Reform:Worldwide Drivers, Trends, and Challenges
IZA DP No. 6800
August 2012
Robert Holzmann
Global Pension Systems and Their Reform: Worldwide Drivers, Trends, and Challenges
Robert Holzmann RH Institute for Economic Policy Analysis,
University of Malaya, IZA, CESifo and World Bank
Discussion Paper No. 6800 August 2012
IZA
P.O. Box 7240 53072 Bonn
Germany
Phone: +49-228-3894-0 Fax: +49-228-3894-180
E-mail: [email protected]
Any opinions expressed here are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but the institute itself takes no institutional policy positions. The Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in Bonn is a local and virtual international research center and a place of communication between science, politics and business. IZA is an independent nonprofit organization supported by Deutsche Post Foundation. The center is associated with the University of Bonn and offers a stimulating research environment through its international network, workshops and conferences, data service, project support, research visits and doctoral program. IZA engages in (i) original and internationally competitive research in all fields of labor economics, (ii) development of policy concepts, and (iii) dissemination of research results and concepts to the interested public. IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author.
IZA Discussion Paper No. 6800 August 2012
ABSTRACT
Global Pension Systems and Their Reform: Worldwide Drivers, Trends, and Challenges*
Across the world, pension systems and their reforms are in a constant state of flux driven by shifting objectives, moving reform needs, and a changing enabling environment. The ongoing worldwide financial crisis and the adjustment to an uncertain “new normal” will make future pension systems different from past ones. The objectives of this policy review paper are threefold: (i) to briefly review recent and ongoing key changes that are triggering reforms; (ii) to outline the main reform trends across pension pillars; and (iii) to identify a few areas on which the pension reform community will need to focus to make a difference. The latter includes: creating solutions after the marginalization or, perhaps, demise of Bismarckian systems in countries with high rates of informality; keeping the elderly in the labor market; and addressing the uncertainty of longevity increases in pension schemes. JEL Classification: G23, H55, I3, J21, J26 Keywords: population aging, longevity, financial crisis, multi pillar pension systems,
social pension, NDC, MDC Corresponding author: Robert Holzmann 8584 Hirschegg 177 Austria E-mail: [email protected]
* The paper has profited from presentations in Washington, D.C., Vienna and Kuala Lumpur and comments and suggestions received, in particular from Mark Dorfman, David Robalino and Peter Rosner, and two anonymous referees, and from excellent editing by Amy Gautam. I am, of course, solely responsible for any remaining errors and gaps.
2
1. Introduction
The outlook on global pension systems and their reforms since the early 1990s has changed
markedly over time; the most recent reassessment is triggered by the ongoing global financial
crisis and its implications for funded and unfunded pensions.
After the fall of the Iron Curtain and the move in Central and Eastern Europe from central
planning to market economies, the future for pension systems for some experts and policy
makers appeared bright and fairly certain once the initial crisis was overcome: transferring main
parts of retirement income provisions from the public sector to the private sector (i) to address
fiscal unsustainability and projected further population aging and (ii) to accelerate financial
market development was expected to trigger higher economic growth to co-finance some of
the transition costs. This policy vision emerged from various sources: the successful Chilean
pension reform and similar reform attempts in Latin America; the seminal 1994 World Bank
publication that proposed a multi-pillar pension scheme with a significant shift from publicly
managed, unfunded defined benefit (DB) schemes to privately managed, fully funded defined
contribution (DC) schemes (World Bank 1994); and general enthusiasm and optimism for more
market and financial intermediation instead of public intervention. This policy vision caught on
in many countries: between 1988 and 2008, twenty-nine countries followed Chile’s example,
with systemic reforms and establishment of a main funded pension pillar (Figure 1). Before the
financial crisis hit, even more countries were poised for reform (e.g., Ukraine) and some will still
do (e.g. Czech Republic).
The worldwide reassessment of the policy approach to pension system reform is broadly the
result of three changes: a readjustment of objectives (such as a refocus on basic protection for
the vulnerable elderly); moving reform needs (such as recognizing the urgency of addressing
the effects of population aging and deferred retirement ages); and perceived and actual
changes in enabling environments (such as more realistic views about the capacity of funded
schemes to manage risks, the achievable rates of return, and the fiscal restrictions to finance
transition deficits). This reassessment has led to reform reversals in a few countries (e.g.,
Argentina, Hungary, and Slovakia) and to temporarily or permanently reduced funded pillar
contributions in others (e.g., Estonia, Latvia, and Poland), but not to a global rejection of the
3
funding or the DC approach. The reassessment has strengthened the push for alternative or
complementary reform approaches, such as Non-financial (or Notional) Defined Contribution
(NDC) and Matching Defined Contribution (MDC) schemes. While these new approaches should
help move pension systems towards greater coverage and sustainability, there are a number of
issues that still await solutions, such as addressing the uncertainty about longevity increases.
Against this background, the structure of this policy review paper is as follows: Section 2 briefly
reviews recent and ongoing changes that have triggered a reassessment of pension systems
and reform approaches; Section 3 outlines the main pension reform trends across pension
pillars, and Section 4 proposes a few areas on which the pension reform community will need
to focus to make a difference. The latter include: preparing solutions for implementation after
the marginalization or, perhaps, even demise of Bismarckian schemes in countries with high
informality; keeping the elderly in the labor market; and addressing longevity in pension
products. A few pension fund-focused conclusions are presented in Section 5.
Figure 1: Evolution of number of countries with (mandated and funded) “Second pillars”
as of 2008
Source: World Bank Pension Data Bank.
12
3
67
8
12
1415
17
21
2324
2728
30
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1980 1988 1993 1994 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2008
Num
ber o
f C
ount
ries
Note: "Second pillar" is defined here as a pension system that has "mandatory personal retirement accounts". Exceptions and other detailed information in the source. Source: Forthcoming World Bank database.
Chile
Peru Uruguay
Mexico
BoliviaEl SalvadorHungaryKazakhstan
PolandSweden
Hong Kong
Costa RicaLatvia
BulgariaCroatiaEstoniaRussia
Lithuania
NigeriaSlovakiaKorea
United Kingdom
ArgentinaAustraliaColombia
Dom. Rep.Kosovo
PanamaRomania
Macedonia
4
2. Changes in Objectives, Reform Needs, and Enabling Environments
Many changes are likely to have influenced the reassessment of what constitutes a good target
for pension system reform (see Holzmann and Hinz 2005, Barr and Diamond 2008, and
Orenstein 2011). In this section, four key changes are highlighted: the refocus on basic income
protection for the elderly; the realization and implications of population aging;
acknowledgment of lessons from the global financial crisis; and the re-assessment of achievable
rates of return on pension fund assets.
2.1 Refocusing on basic income protection for the elderly
The refocus on basic income provisions for the vulnerable elderly across countries has three
distinct but interrelated origins:
• Disappointment by pension reformers with coverage expansion after systemic pension reforms
is quite likely the first main reason for redirected attention towards the vulnerable elderly and
their income protection. For emerging economies, there were strong expectations that
systemic pension reforms (at that time directed towards funded individual account systems)
would contribute to a major increase in coverage/reduced informality as the contribution-
benefit link tightened and credibility of the scheme increased, financial sectors developed and
per-capita income grows. The coverage-per capita income link and a role for interventions is
strongly suggested by cross country data (Chart 2). Yet, eight of eighteen countries in Latin
America continue to have a pension coverage rate of the labor force below 30 percent, with
only moderate improvements in some and largely un-systemic changes in most other countries
over the last two decades (see Chart 3, and more in Rofman and Oliveri 2012). As a result, when
reform and coverage expectations were not met, countries were forced to consider other
approaches to extend coverage (as discussed in the next section).
• Reforms of earnings-related schemes towards a tighter contribution-benefit link limited the
capability to redistribute income towards low income groups within the schemes. Furthermore,
in high income countries, the coverage in contribution-based systems was being reduced due to
lower contribution density, in part because of the difficult transitions into the labor market for
5
youth, and because of the increasing mobility of workers between formal and informal wage
employment and into self-employment, also in OECD countries (Holzmann 2003).
• The International Labour Organization (ILO), which had been sidelined in the
discussion about multi-pillar pension reforms and funded pensions, returned with force to the
international social policy arena, advocating a “social floor”; i.e., access to essential health care
for all, and income protection for the elderly, the unemployed, and children (see ILO 2011).
While implementation of basic old age income protection in many low and middle income
countries is still awaiting realization, the political push has caught on in development circles.
Chart 2: The Coverage-Per Capita Income Connection (mid-late 2000s)
Source: World Bank Pension Data Base
Chart 3: Coverage of the Economically Active Population in Latin America (1990-2010)
Source: Rofman and Oliveri (2012)
Mongolia
Czech RepublicUnited Kingdom
Brazil
Jordan
IndiaGhana
Niger
y = -5E-10x2 + 4E-05x + 0,0198R² = 0,807
0%
10%20%
30%
40%50%
60%
70%80%
90%100%
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000
Act
ive
mem
ber
s/W
ork
ing
age
popula
tion
GDP per capita (in thousands of US$)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
BO PY PE NI HO DR GU SA EC CO VE MX PA BR AR* CR UY CL
* * *~1990 ~2000 ~2010~1990 Mean ~2000 Mean ~2010 Mean
6
2.2 Realizing the implications of population aging
Individuals and politicians in high income countries are finally waking up to the challenge of
population aging. While the message of increased life expectancy, reduced fertility rates, and
resultant deteriorating demographic (and system dependency) ratios has been around for some
time, it has been largely ignored by politicians and the broader public until recently. Gradually,
it has become clear that the effects of population aging on pension systems can only be
addressed in three ways: higher contributions, lower benefits, or later retirement; and this
applies to both unfunded and funded systems. Individuals and policy makers are also gradually
acknowledging that the problem cannot be passed on to future generations, that higher
contributions or lower benefits may not be the best approach, and that later
retirement/working longer looks like the most natural and best solution. Yet it has also become
better understood that simply legislating an increase in the legal retirement age may not be
sufficient. Reforms of the pension system to provide incentives for later retirement and policies
to keep the elderly in the labor market are required to raise the effective retirement age (see
the recent White Paper by the European Commission 2012).
2.3 Effects of the global financial crisis
The financial, then economic, and now sovereign debt crisis that started in 2008 provides some
sobering lessons for reformed pension systems which are only gradually being understood and
translated into policy actions. Three lessons stand out in particular:
• The fall in GDP below the pre-crisis trajectory and in pension fund asset prices (not yet fully
recovered in many countries) made a major dent in the financial situation of mandated
pension schemes and individual benefit level, whether unfunded or funded. Under a severe
crisis and low recovery scenario, the accumulated system deficits for the former transition
economies in Central and Eastern Europe are projected in the low double digit percent of
GDP (see Hinz et al. 2009). Yet the crisis impacts are still dwarfed by those associated with
future population aging and the population effect is particularly strong in the former
transition economies. The clear message is that more efforts must be undertaken, and more
7
quickly, to address population aging and its effect on retirement schemes and public
budgets if a future meltdown of pension systems is to be prevented (see IMF 2011).
• The budgetary consequences of the financial crisis render the financing of transition costs
for a newly introduced funded pillar more difficult. Cash flow problems, already substantial
on their own, are aggravated by the debt accounting under the Maastricht treaty, which
takes insufficient account of the fact that with the reform, part of the increased explicit
debt merely reflects a reduced implicit pension debt. These financing issues have been used
by some countries as an excuse to legally (e.g., Argentina) or virtually (e.g., Hungary and
Slovakia) end the funded pillar and to divert the pension fund assets for public debt
reduction purposes. Other countries have implemented temporary (e.g., Estonia and Latvia)
or permanent (e.g., Poland) reductions in the contribution rate to the funded pillar at the
benefit of the unfunded pillar to reduce public deficit and debt (see World Bank 2009).
While all reform countries were informed about the fiscal implications of a systemic pension
reform, very few, if any, had a well thought-out plan for normal economic situations, let
alone one for bad times.
• The temporary1 fall in asset prices and portfolio composition gave opponents of the
systemic reform approach further ammunition (see Orenstein 2011). But it also led reform
supporters to review some of the design components and to propose improvements, such
as lifecycle portfolios (i.e., a mandated move from an aggressive to a more conservative
portfolio as an individual approaches retirement, as is done in Chile), and more flexibility
around mandated annuitization to avoid a locking-in of losses (see World Bank 2008).
1 Albeit largely temporary, the situation had not fully recovered by the end of 2010 in OECD countries (OECD 2011b) while pension fund asset to GDP ratios in Asian Pacific countries by end-2010 are well above their 2007 levels (Hu 2012). For the latter this reflects both recoveries in asset prices as well as coverage expansion.
8
Chart 3: Simulations of Fiscal Impact of Financial Crisis on Synthetic Country in Central and
Eastern Europe
Source: Hinz et al. (2009)
Chart 4: Real Rates of Return (RoR) of Pension Funds in CEE before and during Crisis
Source: OECD (2011b)
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
RoR until 2007
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
ROR 2008-10
2008 2009 2010
-7%
-6%
-5%
-4%
-3%
-2%
-1%
0%
Fin
an
cia
l B
ala
nce
in
Pe
rce
nt o
f G
DP
Financial Balance of 1. Pillar
basline severe, slow recovery severe, quick recovery moderate
-8%
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
20
22
20
23
20
24
20
25
20
26
20
27
20
28
20
29
20
30
20
31
20
32
20
33
20
34
20
35
20
36
20
37
An
nu
al G
row
th
Ra
te
of
GD
P in
Pe
rce
nt
GDP Growth Scenarios
GDP growth, baseline GDP growth, severe/ slow recovery GDP growth, severe/ rapid recovery GDP growth, moderate
9
2.4 Rate of returns on assets
The financial crisis of 2008 and beyond reinforced the already sober expectations for the rates
of return of funded (and unfunded) schemes and increased uncertainty regarding regulatory
reforms of pension funds (see IPE 2011). The high return expectations of the 1990s were first
dampened by the bursting of the dot.com bubble in the early 2000s. The more recent and
ongoing stark fluctuations in asset prices, the possible non-existence of an asset with zero risk
(i.e., government bonds), and the likely “new normal” future of low real asset return for a
protracted period of time create major uncertainties for individuals, policy makers and pension
fund profession2; more critically, all this begs the question of the future of the size of funded
pension pillars (compared to the unfunded pillars) and possibly even about their very existence.
This question is additional to the still unanswered ones about the (international) performance
of pension funds on a comparable basis and about how to usefully define such a basis (see Hinz
et al. 2010). There is some recent evidence that even in countries like Chile the expected rates
of return on financial assets may not necessarily surpass the growth rate of wages, which is the
rate unfunded systems are able to pay (see Fajnzylber and Robalino 2012).
3. Main Reform Trends across Pension Pillars
The changes in objectives, reform needs, and enabling environments outlined in the prior
section have a bearing on the reform trends across the world that can be highlighted through
design and implementation innovations in the key pension pillars. The 2005 World Bank
definitions and structure (Holzmann and Hinz 2005) are used; this structure separates a “zero
pillar” from a “first public pillar” to better differentiate between the poverty
reduction/redistributive (zero pillar) and consumption smoothing (first pillar) objectives of
public and unfunded schemes. The second pillar refers to mandated funded schemes (DB or
DC); the third pillar refers to voluntary funded schemes on an occupational or personal basis.
2 The uncertainty in the profession is visible by the topics of conferences (such as the 2012 Asian Pension Fund Round Table on “Managing Risks in a Deleveraging World”) and publications that advise to see uncertainty as an opportunity (such as the recent 2012 Principals Global Investors publication on “Market Volatility: Friend or Foe”).
10
The fourth pillar offers informal (family), market-based, and public support (e.g., health care) to
the elderly that impacts the scope and design of the other pension pillars, and is not discussed
herein.
Using the pillar structure to highlight reform trends is motivated by the very broad and
increasing support for the multi-pillar pension concept. The structure can be viewed: as an
ordering principle for analysis; as a means of risk diversification (with unfunded pillars
allocating savings to the pay-as-you-go asset and funded pillars to financial assets); and as
recognition that different pillars have varying degrees of importance for the key target groups
in a population (e.g., formal sector workers, those employed in the informal sector, and the
lifetime poor). For low and many middle income countries, the informal sector is by far the
largest group.
Table 1 highlights the basic system architecture for the mandated pillars by World Bank regions.
As can be seen, the large majority of countries rely on first pillar schemes (that can be Notional
Defined Benefit (NDB), Notional Defined Contribution (NDC), and public DC/provident fund
arrangements) and almost half have a zero pillar (100 percent of the twenty-four traditional
OECD countries have a zero pillar). Only thirty-two countries have mandated and funded pillars,
of which two have a DB structure (Iceland and the Netherlands); the rest have DC structures.
The most drastic changes since 1990 is the more than doubling of countries with a zero pillar,
the transformation of NDB to NDCs schemes in 8 countries, and the introduction of FDC
schemes in 29 countries that mostly complemented and only rarely replaced NDB schemes.
Data in Pallares-Miralles, Romero and Whitehouse (2012) also reveals that in 2011, the majority
of countries (sixty) were still operating a separate scheme for civil servants, albeit some
progress has been made in recent years to integrate these workers into the general scheme.
11
Table 1: Basic system architecture by region, 2011 (and 1990)
Source: Pallares-Miralles, Romero and Whitehouse 2012, and author.
3.1 Zero pillar
The main objective of the zero pillar is poverty reduction, and as this has become the focus of
development policy, its importance has increased over the past two decades (Bloom and
McKinnon 2012). In its simplest form, it is part of the social safety net that protects poor and
vulnerable individuals of all ages through universal, means-tested, or conditional cash transfers;
these instruments have been the revolution in low and middle income countries over the last
decade (see Grosh et al. 2008). In the more “ear-marked” form of social pensions, zero pillar
schemes provide income transfers to the elderly, typically via means-testing for the younger old
people, and at times without means-testing for the very elderly. These schemes are now
ubiquitous in traditional OECD member countries, and are increasingly but slowly gaining
traction in low and middle income countries. An important step to integrate the new zero pillar
with the earnings-related (funded) pillar took place in Chile in 2008; this reform is seen as a
benchmark (see Rofman, Fajnzylber and Herrara 2008). There are also recent initiatives to
implement ex ante transfers in the form of matching contributions for informal wage
employment workers and the self-employed (discussed further below). Chart 5 offers a
Targeted Basic NDB NDC FDC FDB
East Asia & Pacific 4 3 8 1 10 1 0
Europe & Central Asia 11 4 28 5 0 15 0
High income: OECD 8 9 16 2 0 3 3
Latin America & Caribbean 16 2 29 0 0 9 0
Middle East & North Africa 1 1 17 0 0 0 0
South Asia 3 0 2 0 3 1 0
Sub-Saharan Africa 3 2 30 0 4 2 0
2011 Total 46 21 130 8 17 31 3
Grand Total
1990 Total 20 10 140 0 17 2 3
Grand Total
Notes: NDB/NDC: Notional Defined Contribuition Scheme; FDC/FDB: Financial DC or DB scheme; PF: Provident Fund
30 157 5
67 34155
PF
Pillar 1Pillar 0 Pillar 2
12
taxonomy of the retirement income transfers, including the guarantee of minimum pensions
within the mandated (first or second) pillar.
Chart 5: Taxonomy of First Pillar Retirement Income Transfers
Source: Holzmann, Robalino and Takayama (2009)
The key questions about the zero pillar have changed little but a few new ones have been
added. For low and middle income countries, the fiscal affordability, disincentive effects, and
administrative issues of universal benefits compared to means-tested approaches remain an
evergreen. New to the discussion is the potential role of ex ante interventions to address
poverty and adequacy issues upstream, and the impact of social pensions on informality and
thus coverage under formal earnings-related schemes (discussed below).
3.2 First pillar
The typical mandated, unfunded, and DB-type first public pillar has undergone reforms to
various degrees across rich and poor countries. In OECD countries, reforms have been mostly
parametric, and have included: a reduction in generosity (such as a lower annual accrual rate);
lengthening of the assessment period at times to all contribution periods; the introduction of
decrements for earlier and increments for later retirement; and in a number of countries, an
increase in the standard retirement age (see OECD 2011a and 2012). Although all of these
measures should ensure that the first pillar is sustainable, this seems to have been achieved in
some, but not many, countries. In most countries, further parametric reforms are needed to
address both population aging-related fiscal as well as labor market- and social policy-related
R e tir e m e n t In c o m e T ra n s fe r s
E x -a n te in te rv e n t io n s E x - p o s t in te rv e n t io n s
M a tc h in g C o n tr ib u t io n s S o c ia l P e n s io n s M in im u m p e n s io n s
U n iv e rs a l /B a s ic R e s o u r c e T e s te d
13
incentive concerns. The challenge here is to deal with the political discretion that surrounds this
type of reform and compromises the long-term solvency of pension schemes.
Against this background, the NDC scheme, a systemic reform innovation that maintains the
unfunded character of the public first pillar, is attracting increasing attention in Europe and
worldwide. The NDC scheme operates as a DC scheme in accumulation and annuity calculation
at retirement, but remains unfunded (except for, perhaps, a reserve fund to address short-term
liquidity issues). To achieve solvency, the NDC scheme offers only the notional rate of return
that keeps the system solvent and only the annuity amount that is consistent with the
remaining (projected cohort) life expectancy at retirement.
This pension reform innovation was introduced in the second half of the 1990s in Italy, Latvia,
Poland, and Sweden and has weathered the financial crisis fairly well (see Chloń-Domińczak,
Franco and Palmer 2012). In 2009, Norway legislated a reform now under implementation that
mimics many but not all of the NDC features. In 2010, Egypt legislated an NDC reform for which
implementation is envisaged for 2013. This reform approach is also under discussion in many
EU countries, as well as in countries such as Belarus, China, Lebanon, and Uruguay.
The attractions of the NDC scheme are: the promised solvency even during adverse economic
times and under severe population aging; the DC-type incentive structure to address labor
market concerns and broader social changes (such as increasing life expectancy and rising
divorce rates); and the openness to future partial or full shifts towards Funded Defined
Contributions (FDC) schemes once the enabling environment has been created. While
promising, the NDC approach is not foolproof, i.e. immune against policy mistakes, and a there
are still a few conceptual and operational issues that have not yet been satisfactorily solved,
such as the design of an effective balancing mechanism, including the measurement of assets
and liabilities; the interactions of NDC schemes with other pillars and benefits (e.g., disability
and survivor); reliable methods to project cohort life expectancy and equitable approaches for
sharing the longevity risks; and defining and establishing the enabling environment for NDC
implementation in low and middle income countries (see the recent anthology on NDCs by
Holzmann, Palmer and Robalino 2012).
14
3.3 Second pillar
The mandated and funded DC pillar has been the main innovation in pension reform design
since it was introduced in Chile in 1981. While the Chilean reform is considered the most
successful benchmark worldwide, very few of the other twenty-nine countries that had
introduced second pillars as of 2008 have closely copied its design and implementation; in
Europe and Central Asia, only Poland has done so. This may explain some of the variance in
outcomes. Other than Chile, no country has conducted such a rigorous analytical evaluation of
its second pillar scheme, or introduced reforms to improve existing structures (e.g.,
introduction of lifecycle funds or an integrated “solidarity pillar,” or measures to reduce costs
and fees) based on thorough analysis.
Consequently, many of the smaller and larger changes in countries with systemic reforms
represent experimental corrections meant to address issues as they emerged. Three are
highlighted:
• The high costs and fees of funded pensions have been a concern since the beginning, as
their size presents a major reduction of the future benefit level. Fees amounting to 100 or
more basis points lead to a reduction in ultimate benefits of 20 percent and more. Attempts
to control costs and fees include: limits and caps; constraints on marketing efforts;
innovative differentiated fee limits to create a contestable market; and the creation of
clearing houses linked with blind accounts to reduce administrative and marketing costs,
and to limit pension funds to an asset management function. While broadly moderately
effective, these attempts have not been successful in limiting cost and fees to basis points in
the low double digits. And there are conceptual considerations that the current approaches
will never be able to meet given the production technology and information asymmetry
involved; industrial organization models and investment products are suggested to make it
work (see Impavido, Lasagabaster and García-Huitrón 2010).
• At their initiation, pension funds were typically subjected to a “Draconian regime” to avoid
early mishaps and a discrediting of the reform approach. Tight regimes included
quantitative restrictions on asset classes in which the pension fund could invest. Over time,
15
the restrictions were relaxed, and in advanced countries, even abandoned. Concurrently,
the financial significance of pension funds increased, making them a critical component of
the financial market, on par with banks and insurance companies. This led to the extension
of risk-based supervision methods, developed originally for bank supervision, to pension
funds in a number of developed economies (such as Australia, Denmark, and the
Netherlands) but also in emerging economies (such as Mexico). The different approaches
applied provide a rich set of information for followers in both emerging and developed
countries (see Brunner, Hinz and Rocha 2008).
• Much of the focus on the development of the second pillar in emerging economies in Latin
America and Central and Eastern Europe was on the accumulation phase, as the payout
phase was not to happen for many years. Yet the payout phase has almost arrived and the
reform countries that introduced a second pillar now face the challenge of organizing the
payout for retiring workers. This effort entails introducing a well-organized and well-
supervised market for retirement products, including marketing activities, and
intermediaries. Alternatively, governments could provide the annuity in exchange for
handing over the accumulated resources (as is done in Sweden). While some advanced
economies (and Chile) provide useful lessons for the structure and operations of annuity
markets (see Rocha, Vittas and Rudolph 2011), the features and trade-offs for key products
are still little known (Vittas 2011), and financial assets to address inflation and longevity
risks are not available (as discussed in the next section).
3.4 Third pillar
Establishment of this pillar of occupational or personal voluntary funded pensions has often
preceded the creation of the mandated second pillar, but how best to regulate and supervise
these schemes remains a challenge across the world. However, this pillar is receiving increasing
levels of interest from policy makers everywhere as a means to offer some coverage to those
employed in the informal sector in low and middle income countries, and to offer individuals an
opportunity to compensate for reduced public generosity with individual saving efforts in high
income countries. The links between public generosity and voluntary pension coverage clearly
16
exists for OECD economies (Chart 6). To motivate voluntary participation, countries are using
ex ante subsidies in the form of matching contributions (hence, Matching Defined Contribution
(MDC) schemes) and/or other nudging devices and advocacy, particularly for informal workers
(see Palacios and Robalino 2009). The latter include implementing massive information
campaigns and dramatically reducing transactions costs for enrolling and contributing through
the use of mobile phones, such as in the Mbao program in Kenya (ISSA 2011).
MDC schemes are well known in the developed economies such as the U.S. (401k scheme),
Germany (Rister pension), and New Zealand (Kiwi Saver) for supplementing public benefits.
However, MDCs are also gaining traction in emerging economies such as India and China for
offering basic benefit coverage. For example, China started pilot schemes for the rural
population in 2009, an experiment that was extended to the urban population in 2011.
Whether the expectations of these schemes can and will be met is under discussion and review
(Hinz et al). This adds to the better known issues of third pillar coverage, such as high
administrative costs, lack of good annuity products, and the role and scope of regulation.
Chart 6: Coverage Rate under Voluntary Private Pensions versus
Replacement Rate under Public Pension Schemes
Source: Whitehouse, forthcoming.
17
Overall, the move toward funded pensions through mandated (second pillar) or voluntary (third
pillar) arrangements is visible in the size and growth of assets over the last decade for 13 major
pension markets from US$ 14.8 trillion to an estimated aggregate of US$ 26.5 trillion by end-
2011; a record high if measured in absolute terms (Table 2). Pension assets in percent of GDP
reached 72.3 %, still below the 2007 level of 78.9 % but also below the 2010 ratio of 75.5 %.
The crisis after 2007 left a dent in most but not all countries and regions that has not yet been
recovered by end-2011 (Tower Watson 2012). Data for Asia Pacific signal higher ratios of
pension assets to GDP in 2010 compared to 2007 in all 10 reviewed economies (Hu 2012).
Table 2: Pension Assets in 13 Major Pension Markets in end-2011
Source: Tower Watson 2012
3.5 Centralized public pre-funding
The trend to create and expand public pension reserve funds to support unfunded pillars, to
more generally allow for intergenerational consumption smoothing, or to offer a societal
cushioning against adverse future events expanded over the last decade to some eighteen
OECD countries and a number of other major economies, such as China and Argentina. By the
end of 2010, for OECD countries for which funds data are available, public pension reserve
funds held US$ 4.8 trillion (compared to US$ 4.6 trillion in 2009; Table 3). Given the budgetary
in US$ bn in % GDP
Australia 1,301 96
Brazil 1/ 321 15
Canada 2/ 1,303 78
France 129 5
Germany 3/ 468 14
Honh Kong 84 34
Ireland 101 50
Japan 3,363 55 Source: Tower Watson 2012
Netherlands 1,046 133 Notes: 1/ Assets include only thos from closed entities
South Africa 227 62 2/ Excludes RRSP
Switzerland 4/ 693 115 3/ Pension assets from company schemes only
UK 5/ 2,394 101 4/ Only includes total of autonomous pension funds
US 6/ 16,080 107 5/ Excludes Personal Stakeholders DC assets
Total 27,510 72 6/ Includes IRAs
Total Assets 2011
18
crises in many of these countries, it is doubtful that these funds will receive additional
resources or even survive. The situation is likely to be different in resource rich countries with
their earmarked reserve funds (such as in Australia and Norway) or in countries with sovereign
wealth funds with a pension focus (such as in the Russian Federation). And among a number
new resource rich developing countries in Asia (such as Kazakhstan and Mongolia), Latin
America (such as Brazil following Chile’s copper fund) and perhaps soon also some East and
West African countries there is interest in creating wealth funds to address expected future
shocks, including population aging. Such funds have a tradition in the oil-rich countries of the
Gulf Cooperation Council.
Table 3: Size of public pension reserve fund markets in selected OECD countries and other
major economies, 2010
Source: OECD (2011b)
19
4. Key Challenges Ahead
There are many challenges ahead for pension systems, such as:
• Closing the coverage gap;
• Better integrating old age pensions with other insurance programs, in particular
disability and survivor pensions, but also unemployment benefits and severance pay;
• Handling possibly lower future real rates of returns of funded schemes (seen as the
“new normal” by some observers) as well as of unfunded schemes (due to projected
lower or even negative labor force growth and lower productivity growth in aging
economies) with conflicting views and empirical evidence;
• Finding innovative solutions for pension funds to invest abroad to tap into the
conjectured higher capital productivity while reducing the savings constraints of low and
middle income countries;
• Rethinking financing mechanisms away from contributions when funding legacy costs or
redistributive components to reduce labor tax wedges and labor market distortions;
• Overcoming reform resistance, often conjectured to increase as the population ages and
as the age of the median voter increases;
• Finding satisfying solutions for the full portability of acquired pension rights across
professions, sectors, and countries for an increasingly internationally mobile labor force;
and
• Elaboration concepts and defining best practices for reserve funds in resource rich and
other countries as an integrated part of intergenerational and solvency considerations.
Section 4 highlights some of these challenges with three key questions: (i) will Bismarckian
systems with their mandated and often high contribution rates survive in countries with high
informality, and what happens after their marginalization or, perhaps, demise? (ii) how can the
elderly be kept in the labor market?; and (iii) how can unknown longevity increases be
addressed in the payout phase?
4.1 Preparing for Bismarck’s demise and succession
As discussed above, to address low pension coverage, many low and middle income countries
introduced basic provisions in the form of social pensions, still assuming that over time,
workers would move towards formal sector employment and participation in a mandated and
20
earnings-related (funded or unfunded) scheme. Yet in fact, these very provisions (essentially
subsidies) risk becoming a tax on formal work and providing individuals with incentives to take
informal jobs or move into self-employment while they build up their own retirement
provisions (e.g., businesses, houses, financial assets, etc.), knowing that the safety net will be
there for them if everything else fails. Such a tendency seems to be particularly pronounced in
Latin America, as suggested by recent analytical work (see, e.g., Levy, 2008; Aterido, Hallward-
Driemeier and Pagés 2011; and Ribe, Robalino and Walker 2012). If confirmed, this may risk
sounding the death knell of Bismarckian systems in many low and middle income countries. But
what would a future retirement income scheme look like: Only basic provisions plus
unstructured voluntary retirement provisions? Or innovative new schemes in which basic
provisions are also based on individual accounts funded across the lifecycle by government and
augmented by individual savings supplements of unknown design? Or? Stay tuned …
4.2 Keeping the elderly in the labor market
There is a growing understanding and emerging consensus among many (but not yet all) policy
makers in OECD economies that the solution to the aging problem is to be found in longer labor
market participation and hence later retirement of individuals. Thus, there is a willingness to
raise the legal retirement age as witnessed in many OECD countries (OECD 2011a and 2012).
However, there is not yet full recognition that a legal decision alone will do little to raise the
effective retirement age unless major reforms in the labor market take place to allow the
elderly to remain productively employed and to provide employers with incentives to keep
them employed/offer them jobs. While the basic ingredients are simple to pronounce (i.e.,
keep them healthy, skilled, and motivated), the policies to do so are less known or
implementable across varying cultural contexts. And implementing successful reforms requires
reviewing many or all of a country’s institutions and regulations, including the incentive
structure of the pension system. But unless workers are convinced that they will have a job
when they are older, they are likely to oppose a legal increase in the retirement age. While
OECD countries have started introducing promising reforms at the firm level to improve labor
market opportunities for the elderly (see, e.g., European Centre for the Development of
21
Vocational Training 2008), any scaling-up or translation to other countries is, for the time being,
limited by the lack of sound analytical penetration and rigorous monitoring and evaluation of
these innovations.
4.3 Addressing unknown longevity increases during the payout phase
Perhaps the main open design issue for both NDC and FDC schemes concerns the payout phase
and how best to address shocks in longevity. The financial, social, and political sustainability of
a DC scheme requires translating accumulated savings at retirement into an annuity that takes
account of the projected remaining cohort life expectancy, and that has adjustment features
that are fair and transparent if the longevity projections turn out to be wrong. At the moment,
DC systems do not have reliable projection methods for mortality rates and remaining life
expectancies (see, e.g., Alho, Bravo and Palmer 2012). Neither NDC nor FDC schemes have
robust methods for distributing the risks if projection errors take place. In FDC schemes that
typically use the private sector annuity market, the financial sector provider officially takes the
risk, while individuals and/or the government bear the final risk if insurers go bankrupt, but
with untested proportions. In NDC schemes run by the rule book, projection errors can be
corrected by adjusting the notional interest rate and the annual indexation of pensions –
effectively distributing risks between active and retired plan members in specified proportions.
For both FDC and NDC schemes, there are several proposals to address the longevity issue
through longevity bonds that create an effective hedge against the longevity risks (see Blake,
Boardman and Cairns 2010; Palmer 2012). These proposals need further analysis and piloting
prior to full implementation, however. Across the world are financial market instruments to
hedge longevity risks still virtually non-existent (Roy 2012). Whatever progress can be made in
this area, paying attention to population aging and longevity issues forms part the reforms to
increase the confidence in public and private sector balance sheets (IMF 2012).
5. Concluding Remarks
Pension systems are in constant flux, and their reforms are driven by shifting objectives, moving
reform needs, and changing enabling environments. Over recent decades, this has led to a
number of redirections and innovations throughout the world, including: the introduction or
22
strengthening of basic protection for the vulnerable elderly; the move towards funded and
unfunded mandated DC schemes; and increased nudging by governments to encourage benefit
coverage and “top-ups” under voluntary and funded provisions.
The move towards pre-funded old age income provisions is now itself under review as fallout of
the financial crisis/recession/borderline depression. Areas of concern include the fall in asset
prices, the high fluctuations in the rates of return, and the possibility of lower real risk-adjusted
rates of return as the “new normal.” Some of the lessons from the crisis are straightforward
and easy to implement, such as the move towards lifecycle funds. Others may be more difficult
to deal with, such as the outlook to lower rates of return plus higher return rate volatility.
However, such a review is unlikely to ring the death knell of pre-funded old age pensions, if only
for the simple reason that the fiscal conditions after the crisis and the fiscal implications of the
expected further aging of populations limit both the capacity and the willingness of
governments to take care of the whole retirement income task. However, providers of funded
provisions will need to work hard to reestablish confidence and to deliver what is promised to
keep their share in the retirement income market.
References
Aterido, Reyes, Mary Hallward-Driemeier, and Carmen Pagés. 2011. “Does Expanding Health
Insurance Beyond Formal-Sector Workers Encourage Informality? Measuring the Impact
of Mexico’s Seguro Popular.” IZA Discussion Paper No. 5996. Bonn: IZA.
Alho, Juha, Jorge Miguel Bravo, and Edward Palmer. 2012. “Annuities and Life Expectancy in
NDC.” In Holzmann, Palmer, and Robalino (eds), op cit. chapter 22.
Barr, Nicholas and Peter Diamond. 2008. Reforming Pensions: Principles and Policy Choices.
Oxford University Press.et al.: Oxford.
Blake, David, Tom Boardman, and Andrew Cairns. 2010. “Sharing Longevity Risk: Why
Governments Should Issue Longevity Bonds.” Discussion Paper PI-1002. London: The
Pensions Institute. Available at: pensions-institute.org/workingpapers/wp1002.pdf.
Bloom, David and Roddy McKinnon. 2012. The design and implementation of public pension
systems in developing countries: Issues and options, mimeo.
23
Brunner, Greg, Richard Hinz and Roberto Rocha. 2008. Risk-Based Supervision of Pension Funds:
Emerging Practices and Challenges. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Chloń-Domińczak, Agnieszka, Daniele Franco and Edward Palmer. 2012. “The First Wave of NDC
Reforms: The Experiences of Italy, Latvia, Poland and Sweden”. In Holzmann, Palmer and
Robalino (eds), op. cit. Volume I, chapter 2.
European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training. 2008. “Innovative Learning
Measures for Older Workers.” Cedefop Panorama Series, 159. Luxembourg: Office for
Official Publications of the European Communities.
European Commission. 2012. An Agenda for Adequate, Safe and Sustainable Pensions. White
Paper. Brussels: COM.
Fajnzylber, Eduardo and David Robalino, 2012. “Chile: Shadowing of FDC with NDC.” In
Holzmann and Palmer, eds. op cit. Chapter 9.
Grosh, Margaret, Carlo del Ninno, Emil Tesliuc, and Azedine Ouerghi. 2008. For Protection &
Promotion: The Design and Implementation of Effective Safety Nets. Washington, DC:
World Bank.
Hinz, Richard , Asta Zviniene, Sergi Biletsky, Tatyana Bogomolova. 2009. “The Impact of the
Financial Crisis on Public Pension Systems: Stress Testing Models of Mandatory Pension
Systems in Middle Income and Developing Countries”. Social Protection & Labor
Department. Washington, DC: World Bank. Mimeo, September.
Hinz, Richard, Heinz P. Rudolph, Pablo Antolin, and Juan Yermo. 2010. Evaluating the Financial
Performance of Funds. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Hinz, Richard, Robert Holzmann, David Testa and Noriyuki Takayama, eds. forthcoming.
Matching Defined Contribution (MDC) Schemes: A Promising Pension Design to Enhance
Coverage and Benefit Level? Washington DC: World Bank.
Holzmann, Robert. 2003. A Provocative Note on Coverage in Public Pension Schemes, in:
Tausch, A. (2003, ed.): The Three Pillars of Wisdom – A Reader on Globalization, World
Bank Pension Models and Welfare Society, New York (Nova Science Publisher), 85-99.
Holzmann, Robert, Edward Palmer and David Robalino, eds. 2012. NDC Pension Schemes in a
Changing Pension World, Volume 1: Progress, Issues, and Implementation; Volume 2:
Gender, Politics, and Financial Stability. Washington, DC: World Bank and Swedish Social
Insurance Agency.
Holzmann, Robert, David A. Robalino, and Noriyuki Takayama, eds. 2009. Closing the Coverage
Gap – The Role of Social Pensions and Other Retirement Income Transfers. Washington,
DC: World Bank.
24
Holzmann, Robert and Edward Palmer, eds. 2006. Pension Reform: Issues and Prospect for Non-
Financial Defined Contribution (NDC) Schemes. Washington, DC: World Bank. (also
available in Chinese, German and Spanish).
Holzmann, R., Richard Hinz, and Bank Team. 2005. Old-Age Income Support in the Twenty-first
Century: An International Perspective on Pension Systems and Reform. Washington, DC:
World Bank (also available in Arabic, Chinese, Russian and Spanish).
Hu Yuwei. 2012. Growth of Asian Pension Assets: Implications for Financial and Capital Markets.
ADBI Working Paper Series No. 360, May. Tokyo: ADBI.
International Labor Organisation (ILO). 2011. The Social Protection Floor. Geneva: ILO.
International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2011. The Challenge of Public Pension Reform in Advanced
and Emerging Economies. Fiscal Affairs Department, December 28. Washington, DC:
IMF
Impavido, Gregorio, Esperanza Lasagabaster, and Manuel García-Huitrón. 2010. New Policies for
Mandatory Defined Contribution Pensions: Industrial organization models and
investment products. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Investment & Pensions Europe (IPE). 2011. “Top 1000 European Pension Funds.” London: IPE
International Publisher, October.
International Monetary Fund. 2012. “The Financial Impact of Longevity”, in Global Financial
Stability Report: The Quest for Lasting Stability, Chapter 4. Washington, DC: International
Monetary Fund, 135-165.
International Social Security Association (ISSA). 2011. Mbao Pension Plan: A case of the
Retirement Benefits Authority. Good Practices in Social Security. Geneva: ISSA.
www.issa.int
Levy, Santiago. 2008. Good Intentions, Bad Outcomes. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
OECD. 2011a. Pensions at a Glance 2011: Retirement-Income Systems in OECD and G20
Countries. Paris: OECD.
OECD. 2011b. “Pension Markets in Focus.” Issue 8, July. Paris: OECD.
OECD. 2012. OECD Pension Outlook 2012. Paris: OECD.
Orenstein, Mitchell A. 2011. “Pension privatization in crisis: Demise or rebirth of a global policy
trend?” International Social Security Review, vol. 64 (3): 65-80.
Palacios, Robert and David Robalino. 2009. “Matching Defined Contributions: A way to Increase
Pension Coverage”. In Holzmann, Robalino and Takayama, op. cit. Chapter 13: 187-202.
25
Pallares-Miralles, Montserrat, Carolina Romero, and Edward Whitehouse. 2012. International
Patterns of Pension Provision II: Worldwide Overview of Facts and Figures, Social
Protection Discussion Papers No. 1212, May.
Palmer, Edward. 2012. “Generic NDC: Equilibrium, Valuation and Risk Sharing.” In Holzmann,
Palmer and Robalino (eds), op cit. chapter 19.
Ribe, Helena, David Robalino, and Ian Walker. 2012. From Right to Reality: Incentives, Labor
Markets, and the Challenge of Achieving Universal Social Protection in Latin America and
the Caribbean. Latin American Development Forum Series. Washington, DC: World
Bank.
Rocha, Roberto, Dmitri Vittas, and Heinz P. Rudolph. 2011. Annuities and other Retirement
Products: Designing the Payout Phase. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Rofman, Rafel, Eduardo Fajnzylber, and German Herrara. 2008. “Reforming the Pension
Reforms: The Recent Initiatives and Actions on Pensions in Argentina and Chile.” Social
Protection Discussion Papers No. 0831, May. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Rofmann, Rafel and Maria Laura Oliveri. 2012. Pension Coverage in Latin America: Trends and
Determinants. Social Protection Discussion Papers No. 1217, August.
Roy Amlan. 2012. Innovative Approaches to Managing Longevity Risk in Asia: Lessons from the
West. ADBI Working Paper Series No. 360, May. Tokyo: ADBI.
Tower Watson. 2012. Global Pension Asset Study. TowerWatson.com.
Vittas, Dimitri. 2011. “The Mechanics and Regulations of Variable Payout Annuities.” Policy
Research Working Papers No. 5962, August. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Whitehouse, Eduardo. forthcoming. “Policies to Encourage Private Pension Savings: Evidence
from OECD Countries”, in Hinz et al., eds. Matching Defined Contribution (MDC)
Schemes: A Promising Pension Design to Enhance Coverage and Benefit Level?
Washington DC: World Bank.
World Bank. 1994. Averting the Old Age Crisis. Washington, DC: World Bank.
World Bank. 2008. “The Financial Crisis and Mandatory Pension Systems in Developing
Countries: Short- and Medium-term Responses for Retirement Income Systems.”
Pension Reform Primer Notes, December. Washington, DC: World Bank.
World Bank. 2009. “Pensions in Crisis: Europe and Central Asia Regional Policy Note.” Europe
and Central Asia, November. Washington, DC: World Bank.